Lethal Ecstasy

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

His counter-argument is perfectly valid; just because it is being ignored by the drug-defenders on-thread doesn't make it any less valid.

Ignorance is bliss; the naivety of those who would like to see drugs freely available is worrying; I suspect a degree of innocent optimism in those who think the scourge of drug abuse and the problems it causes would disappear if only the law would allow it.

It is desperately dense to think like that.

Not one person has said that. You're just making crap up

The reality is that people are never going to stop taking drugs like MDMA so why not regulate it, provide safe testing to avoid people dying from crap dressed up as MDMA

Unless of course you think prohibition in its current form is working? If so it's highly ironic that you're calling others naive

Lucas Castroman

jiltloop wrote: »

My brain is fried is it? And all my friends are dead end friends? You have a massive chip on your shoulder and you're completely out of touch with reality. People like you live in a bubble of ignorance built on information that was spoonfed to you and which you didn't have the intelligence or openness of mind to think about for yourself.

I rather be "childish" and experience things for myself thanks.

Regarding your assertion that having an open discussion on an internet forum may influence the drug use of others, it's highly unlikely that any views here will be that effective. Most people (excepting yourself, see above) can think for themselves.

Would you advise young people going to the One Direction concert tonight to take Ecstasy if offered?
If anybody of you respond yes, then your stupidity to me is confirmed.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Would you advise young people going to the One Direction concert tonight to take Ecstasy if offered?
If anybody of you respond yes, then your stupidity to me is confirmed.

Again, it's hilarious that the person who thinks one can hold "illegal opinions" is calling anyone else stupid

catallus

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Not one person has said that. You're just making crap up

Are you even reading this thread? Go check it out.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

Are you even reading this thread? Go check it out.

Show me a post where someone has said the regulation of drugs will completely get rid of the problem of drug abuse like you claimed so

poundapunnet

catallus wrote: »

Like I said, just because you ignore an argument doesn't mean it isn't there; seriously, do you realise that you have your head in the sand? It is becoming cringe-worthy, reading posts by people who should know better defending drug-use.

what argument am I ignoring?

jiltloop

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Would you advise young people going to the One Direction concert tonight to take Ecstasy if offered?
If anybody of you respond yes, then your stupidity to me is confirmed.

Nobody is advising anybody to do anything here. Not one post that I''ve read has advised someone to do drugs. Unless I've missed one?

I wouldn't advise anyone to do anything but think for themselves and make their own choices.

I would, if anyone asked, give an honest account of my experiences with drugs and alcohol too.

RollieFingers

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Would you advise young people going to the One Direction concert tonight to take Ecstasy if offered?
If anybody of you respond yes, then your stupidity to me is confirmed.

Yes!

jiltloop

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

Would you advise young people going to the One Direction concert tonight to take Ecstasy if offered?
If anybody of you respond yes, then your stupidity to me is confirmed.

As an afterthought, I would never advise anyone to go to a one direction gig on pills. Much more enjoyable with some techno.

catallus

tashiusclay wrote: »

Its the illegality of certain drugs that makes them dangerous, not the drug itself.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The illegality makes them more dangerous. Taking legalised drugs isn't without risk - just look at alcohol and tobacco.

ScumLord wrote: »

It wasn't ecstasy that killed them it was a concoction of drugs sold as ecstasy.

It's the law that causes these problems not the drugs.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yet another example that the purpose of drug prohibition is to harm people not to protect them.

ScumLord wrote: »

If ecstasy was legal and regulated deaths would be extremely rare. When people die of drugs today it's most often through prolonged abuse or contaminated drugs that aren't what the person intended to take.

Our laws do nothing to prevent drug addiction, they make the problem worse by all accounts and they actively encourage the abuse of the market with unknown chemicals by lowlifes that don't care who they hurt.

It doesn't matter if you dislike drugs, I think it's clear at this stage to any rational person that the cure is worse than the disease when it comes to drug laws.

Fieldog wrote: »

Damn you and your sensible posting!

Suryavarman wrote: »

What gives you the right to tell other adults what they can and can't put into their body?

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not happy or sad about it. It's just a fact of life that people enjoy doing drugs and we're never going to reach a point in time when people are not going to want to do drugs.

Young adults in particular are going to want to do drugs, the government have spent the last 50 years trying to scare young people with misinformation, heavy custodial sentences and none of it has worked.

Regulate drugs and deaths will be reduced, drug related crime will be reduced and addicts can finally come out from under the monster label and get treatment.

Stuxnet wrote: »

cos 499/500 times Its bloody awesome, and your wired outta your head and its great

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really putting your life on the line, it's usually pretty clear what kind of yolks they are by the state of everybody else. If your dealers not dead it's probably alright, if he's off his head it means it's probably really good stuff.

Everything in life carries danger, the risks with drugs are acceptable with the right quality control.

AdamD wrote: »

Illegal drugs are unsafe largely because they are illegal. If say MDMA was made legal, it would be safe as it would be tested and made in a regulated environment. Can you not comprehend that?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Because if I wanted to say that, I'd have to tell people to avoid a myriad of other dangerous activities such as driving to work or going horse riding.

And it's not for me to say whether something is a needless risk or not. It's for the person taking the risk to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.



Drug prohibition has magnified the damage caused by drugs in pretty much every measure imaginable. The only people benefiting from drug prohibition are the drug dealers and the people charged with enforcing the laws.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Show me a post where someone has said the regulation of drugs will completely get rid of the problem of drug abuse like you claimed so

That's just from the first 90 posts

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

That's just from the first 90 posts

?

That's just a bunch of posts, none of which say anything regulation/legislation solving the problem of drug abuse as you claimed here:

catallus wrote: »

I suspect a degree of innocent optimism in those who think the scourge of drug abuse and the problems it causes would disappear if only the law would allow it.

So now that we've waded through that bit of bull****, how about we go back to the questions you ignored in my previous post



Out of interest, and because you've already ignored the question. Do you think the current form of drug prohibition is effective ?

poundapunnet

catallus wrote: »

That's just from the first 90 posts

Not one of those posts said legalisation would get rid of the problem, they're saying it would help it.

jiltloop

Well done with the multi quotes! But eh why?

catallus

Both of ye are reaching now.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

Both of ye are reaching now.

no, you're the one lying about what people are supposedly saying on the thread. The fact that you're resorting to petty rhetoric like this says it all

catallus

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

no, you're the one lying about what people are supposedly saying on the thread. The fact that you're resorting to petty rhetoric like this says it all

You are the liar, not me.

If you can't understand that then there really is no hope for reasoned discussion.

The words are right there for you to read, and yet you deny.

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

His counter-argument is perfectly valid; just because it is being ignored by the drug-defenders on-thread doesn't make it any less valid.

His argument is that no one should mount a counter argument. Anyone that questions the way things are is irresponsible. That's a stupid argument.

Ignorance is bliss;

It must be, I can't believe you're calling the people with the most experience ignorant. How can you genuinely expect someone who's used drugs and had a good experience to be convinced by your argument that they didn't?

the naivety of those who would like to see drugs freely available is worrying; I suspect a degree of innocent optimism in those who think the scourge of drug abuse and the problems it causes would disappear if only the law would allow it.

Drugs are freely available, right now. It's just that now the money from the the majority of the recreational drug market (excluding alcohol) goes into organised crime. That money is there year on year, either the state takes control of it or it stays in the hands of criminals.

I don't think anyone thinks that drug problems would go away with legalisation, that's impossible. We'll just reduce the harm to more acceptable levels.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

catallus wrote: »

You are the liar, not me.

If you can't understand that then there really is no hope for reasoned discussion.

The words are right there for you to read, and yet you deny.

Show me the post where someone said that legislation/regulation will end drug abuse so?

I mean we can all read, none of the posts you quoted said anything like that. You're only fooling yourself really

I suggest you retract what you said initially if you want to retain any sort of creditability here

It's a bit pathetic tbh!

poundapunnet

catallus wrote: »

You are the liar, not me.

If you can't understand that then there really is no hope for reasoned discussion.

The words are right there for you to read, and yet you deny.

There is no hope for reasoned discussion if you keep stubbornly insisting that people saying "prohibition makes drugs more dangerous" is the same thing as saying "legalisation would make drugs not dangerous".

It's really not that subtle a distinction between the two statements, and for someone who's accusing others of willful blindness to the arguments of those who disagree with them, you are spectacularly failing to practice what you preach.

jiltloop

catallus wrote: »

You are the liar, not me.

If you can't understand that then there really is no hope for reasoned discussion.

The words are right there for you to read, and yet you deny.

Nobody has said that legislation is going to solve the problem overnight. Nobody is being naive in that regard.

What people have been doing is giving various logical reason why legislation would improve the drugs situation in a multitude of ways and how the current legislation continues to exacerbate the current problems.

Now, do you agree or disagree with that? Instead of wasting time exaggerating what people have been saying and actually avoiding a constructive discussion, why don't you actually focus on what people have been arguing?

catallus

poundapunnet wrote: »

There is no hope for reasoned discussion if you keep stubbornly insisting that people saying "prohibition makes drugs more dangerous" is the same thing as saying "legalisation would make drugs not dangerous".

It's really not that subtle a distinction between the two statements, and for someone who's accusing others of willful blindness to the arguments of those who disagree with them, you are spectacularly failing to practice what you preach.

I will insist on it because that is what ye are saying. Its just another mindless "drugs would be great if the law let us have them" thread. No amount of backtracking or obfuscation can change that.

I'll finish on a personal note and I might be shouted down for it; for every single one of ye on here saying drugs should be legalised, I really truly hope you have to witness first-hand the pain and helplessness of seeing a loved one get lost in the labyrinth of drug addiction; I hope your family will be plagued by what you so dearly wish for. I mean that.

I'm out.

Lucas Castroman

ScumLord wrote: »

No, lifes to short. The chances of getting the bad stuff is pretty rare too, usually it's just shyte that's not worth buying.

jiltloop wrote: »

Nobody is advising anybody to do anything here. Not one post that I''ve read has advised someone to do drugs. Unless I've missed one?

I wouldn't advise anyone to do anything but think for themselves and make their own choices.

I would, if anyone asked, give an honest account of my experiences with drugs and alcohol too.

See above post by Scumlord when asked should people cease taking ecstasy - appears to me that he's offering advice on drug-taking? Care to comment?

You avoided the question nicely - It's a very lofty notion that people are the captains of their own ships and make every decision independently but not true.

You are perpetuating the notion that taking ecstasy is safe when it is anything but

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

I'll finish on a personal note and I might be shouted down for it; for every single one of ye on here saying drugs should be legalised, I really truly hope you have to witness first-hand the pain and helplessness of seeing a loved one get lost in the labyrinth of drug addiction; I hope your family will be plagued by what you so dearly wish for. I mean that.

I'm sorry to hear you had a personal tragedy in relation to drug abuse, it happens and it's horrible. I have been lucky in all my years and encounters to know of only two people that had the early onset of a mental condition because of drug abuse.


It's obviously hard to have anything other than hate for something that has caused harm to a family member, maybe some day you'll be able to see past that hate and find a more balanced view.

RollieFingers

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

See above post by Scumlord when asked should people cease taking ecstasy - appears to me that he's offering advice on drug-taking? Care to comment?

You avoided the question nicely - It's a very lofty notion that people are the captains of their own ships and make every decision independently but not true.

You are perpetuating the notion that taking ecstasy is safe when it is anything but

It's a thread on boards, in AH of all places. People are hardly going to log on and think "hey, these guys are saying taking ecstasy is safe, better get a few pills!"
Get off your high horse!

ScumLord

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

See above post by Scumlord when asked should people cease taking ecstasy - appears to me that he's offering advice on drug-taking? Care to comment?

I was answering a direct question with my opinion.

What would you have accused me of if I hadn't answered the question...?

You avoided the question nicely -

You are perpetuating the notion that taking ecstasy is safe when it is anything but

Again, no one is saying it's safe. The word reduce means makes smaller, make less of. It doesn't mean safe.

strobe

catallus wrote: »

I will insist on it because that is what ye are saying. Its just another mindless "drugs would be great if the law let us have them" thread. No amount of backtracking or obfuscation can change that.

I'll finish on a personal note and I might be shouted down for it; for every single one of ye on here saying drugs should be legalised, I really truly hope you have to witness first-hand the pain and helplessness of seeing a loved one get lost in the labyrinth of drug addiction; I hope your family will be plagued by what you so dearly wish for. I mean that.

I'm out.

You're full of **** and gibberish from top to toe for all the world to see catallus. You know full well what people are saying but are pretending to be dense as you have no intelligible counter argument. And now your resorting to emotional whinging and rage quiting. Probably a good idea. Quit while your only this far behind.

kjl

I like to the legalisation conversation.

I don't drink and I don't smoke, but I am particular to the odd pill, but I really hate the fact that it's impossible to track down a good supply.

You have to deal with a lot when getting them, doggie people, unsure about quantity and I have been struck down more than once with one that just made me feel sick for the whole night.

But when you get a good one, it's worth the day you have to spend in bed the following day because you ride around in pure bliss, everything and everyone is beautiful and it's like it opens up your ears to music, it becomes a part of you.

If I would describing it to a religious person I would say it's the closest to heaven that they are ever going to experience.

My parents are in their 70's and I would like them to try it sometime, just so they can experience the feeling at least once in their lives.

If we legalised it, people would take it and enjoy it. Deaths would be minimal, more people woudl die eating peanuts.

We could tax it too

Lucas Castroman

RollieFingers wrote: »

It's a thread on boards, in AH of all places. People are hardly going to log on and think "hey, these guys are saying taking ecstasy is safe, better get a few pills!"
Get off your high horse!

You speak like anything goes on "After hours" where really it is highly censored. However, it seems that advocating certain forms of dangerous illegality is cool.
The only comfort I get from knowing there is a deadly batch of circulating ecstasy is that it offers some form of darwinian natural selection.

poundapunnet

catallus wrote: »

I will insist on it because that is what ye are saying. Its just another mindless "drugs would be great if the law let us have them" thread. No amount of backtracking or obfuscation can change that.

I'll finish on a personal note and I might be shouted down for it; for every single one of ye on here saying drugs should be legalised, I really truly hope you have to witness first-hand the pain and helplessness of seeing a loved one get lost in the labyrinth of drug addiction; I hope your family will be plagued by what you so dearly wish for. I mean that.

I'm out.

No amount of saying 2+2=5 is going to make those two statements the same.

It's nice to see how you react when actually compelled to respond properly to people though. Have to say, tantrum throwing and flouncing wasn't what I'd pictured, let alone the classy move of wishing drug addiction on people. Sorry to have upset you to such a degree.

poundapunnet

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

You speak like anything goes on "After hours" where really it is highly censored. However, it seems that advocating certain forms of dangerous illegality is cool.
The only comfort I get from knowing there is a deadly batch of circulating ecstasy is that it offers some form of darwinian natural selection.

So that's two of the anti-legalisation posters who've now wished death/addiction on the people who disagree with them. Yous would make great poster boys for your views lads.

RollieFingers

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

You speak like anything goes on "After hours" where really it is highly censored. However, it seems that advocating certain forms of dangerous illegality is cool.
The only comfort I get from knowing there is a deadly batch of circulating ecstasy is that it offers some form of darwinian natural selection.

You take comfort in knowing people could die from a dodgy batch of pills? That's lovely!

jiltloop

catallus wrote: »

I will insist on it because that is what ye are saying. Its just another mindless "drugs would be great if the law let us have them" thread. No amount of backtracking or obfuscation can change that.

I'll finish on a personal note and I might be shouted down for it; for every single one of ye on here saying drugs should be legalised, I really truly hope you have to witness first-hand the pain and helplessness of seeing a loved one get lost in the labyrinth of drug addiction; I hope your family will be plagued by what you so dearly wish for. I mean that.

I'm out.

I'm sorry you had to experience that. It has clearly affected your ability to discuss the issue on a sensible level though.

And wishing my family to be plagued by drug addiction is both juvenile and disgusting.

Pretty ironic that the people on this thread who have done drugs and are being accused of being childish and having fried brains are the side that are not resorting to childish attempts at belittling.

The ones who are staunchly anti-drugs have quite obvious chips on their shoulders towards those of us who have enjoyed drugs without being adversely affected by the them. Obviously this dilutes their arguments.

jiltloop

Lucas Castroman wrote: »

You speak like anything goes on "After hours" where really it is highly censored. However, it seems that advocating certain forms of dangerous illegality is cool.
The only comfort I get from knowing there is a deadly batch of circulating ecstasy is that it offers some form of darwinian natural selection.

The 2 of you fine model citizens have now resorted to wishing ill on others who do drugs.

Are you meant to be the example that the people reading this should take from?

I may have done drugs in my time but I can put across a reasoned argument without resorting to that kind of petty nonsense.

I have no more interest in discussing this subject with people like you two who are incapable of arguing on a reasonable level with getting personal.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

jiltloop wrote: »

I

Pretty ironic that the people on this thread who have done drugs and are being accused of being childish and having fried brains are the side that are not resorting to childish attempts at belittling.

this

Basically he came onto the thread, made an accusation he couldn't back up and did a runner when it was pointed out how ridiculous it was that he wouldn't retract said statement

Oh, and then he said he wished some of our relatives died. Classy guy

StinkyMunkey

Fact is, drugs are illegal.

Fact is, drugs are unsafe.

Fact is, drugs finance crime.

Fact is, people become addicted to them.

People who argue "if" drugs were made legal, this would all stop, simple have taken to many mind altering substances - If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

Pro drug heads really dont care about society as a whole or the fact that drugs create a multitude of real problems, and argue about "what ifs". Its simply a case of, i want to take drugs and feck anyone who disagrees with me, i dont care about the misery or crime that surrounds drugs, its all about me.

I do care about the effect that drugs have on society and the young people stupid enough to take them dying. Just because i think people are muppets for taking them, doesnt mean i wanna see them die, ill settle for a really bad experience.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Fact is, drugs are illegal.

Fact is, drugs are unsafe.

Fact is, drugs finance crime.

Fact is, people become addicted to them.

.

Drugs finance crime because they're illegal. People don't become addicted to Ecstasy

I don't want yokes to be completely legal and I don't take them. But it's completely ignorant small minded crap like your post that keeps the failed prohibition that is currently in force going

But don't let that stop you climbing aboard your high horse, labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "drug head"

Again, it's amazing that most of the posters saying that the current system works seem to just automatically resort to insults and childish generalisations.

Call Me Jimmy

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Fact is, drugs are illegal.

Fact is, drugs are unsafe.

Fact is, drugs finance crime.

Fact is, people become addicted to them.

People who argue "if" drugs were made legal, this would all stop, simple have taken to many mind altering substances - If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

Pro drug heads really dont care about society as a whole or the fact that drugs create a multitude of real problems, and argue about "what ifs". Its simply a case of, i want to take drugs and feck anyone who disagrees with me, i dont care about the misery or crime that surrounds drugs, its all about me.

I do care about the effect that drugs have on society and the young people stupid enough to take them dying. Just because i think people are muppets for taking them, doesnt mean i wanna see them die, ill settle for a really bad experience.

Sounds very bitter. Does the bitterness satisfy you?

StinkyMunkey

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Drugs finance crime because they're illegal. People don't become addicted to Ecstasy

I don't want yokes to be completely legal and I don't take them. But it's completely ignorant small minded crap like your post that keeps the failed prohibition that is currently in force going

But don't let that stop you climbing aboard your high horse, labelling anyone who disagrees with you a "drug head"

Again, it's amazing that most of the posters saying that the current system works seem to just automatically resort to insults and childish generalisations.

I think you must be high, i said people become addicted to drugs (not ecstasy).

A didnt label anyone a drug head - i used the term muppet.

I guess financing crime makes you a real upstanding member of the community, lets not let the facts get in the way of your right to get high:rolleyes:.

jiltloop

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Fact is, drugs are illegal.

Fact is, drugs are unsafe.

Fact is, drugs finance crime.

Fact is, people become addicted to them.

People who argue "if" drugs were made legal, this would all stop, simple have taken to many mind altering substances - If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

Pro drug heads really dont care about society as a whole or the fact that drugs create a multitude of real problems, and argue about "what ifs". Its simply a case of, i want to take drugs and feck anyone who disagrees with me, i dont care about the misery or crime that surrounds drugs, its all about me.

I do care about the effect that drugs have on society and the young people stupid enough to take them dying. Just because i think people are muppets for taking them, doesnt mean i wanna see them die, ill settle for a really bad experience.

No one is saying this!? Can you not read properly?

Can the anti drug brigade not read without purposely twisting what people are saying?

It's baffling, can you not engage in an incisive discussion without being stupidly obtuse?

StinkyMunkey

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Sounds very bitter. Does the bitterness satisfy you?

Think about it Sherlock, if someone has a bad experience, such as a bad trip, they will be less likely to take them again. Or do people only ever have really good experiences with drugs - lol, grow up.

jiltloop

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I think you must be high, i said people become addicted to drugs (not ecstasy).

A didnt label anyone a drug head - i used the term muppet.

I guess financing crime makes you a real upstanding member of the community, lets not let the facts get in the way of your right to get high:rolleyes:.

Well there have been some fine upstanding members of the community on your side of the argument so far.

You've thus far called people who use drugs as muppets (very well thought out intellectual argument there) and wished for them to have really bad experiences.

Is the next step to wish death and addiction on us and our kin? That's been the general direction of the anti drugs arguments so far. You've started well, do continue....

RollieFingers

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Think about it Sherlock, if someone has a bad experience, such as a bad trip, they will be less likely to take them again. Or do people only ever have really good experiences with drugs - lol, grow up.

The anti-legalisation brigade resorting to cheap shots and personal insults once again! Smoke a joint lads, would do yous the world of good!

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

jiltloop wrote: »

No one is saying this!? Can you not read properly?

Can the anti drug brigade not read without purposely twisting what people are saying?

It's baffling, can you not engage in an incisive discussion without being stupidly obtuse?

Presumable not:

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I think you must be high, i said people become addicted to drugs (not ecstasy).

A didnt label anyone a drug head - i used the term muppet.

I guess financing crime makes you a real upstanding member of the community, lets not let the facts get in the way of your right to get high:rolleyes:.

I mean that was after I already stated I didn't take yokes. He clearly didn't even read my post

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

RollieFingers wrote: »

The anti-legalisation brigade

That's actually a good phrase. You swear anyone that isn't in favour of our current drugs laws wants yokes/heroin/coke for sale in the local corner shop. The hysterics are laughable

In reality most reasoned people on this thread want a system that will look at the issue realistically because the current measures simply do not work. As the horrible case this thread was set up because of proves

StinkyMunkey

RollieFingers wrote: »

The anti-legalisation brigade resorting to cheap shots and personal insults once again! Smoke a joint lads, would do yous the world of good!

Good plan, i just go out and find some friendly local drug dealer, ill ask him for a few E's, what could go wrong:cool:.

Aidric

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Sounds very bitter. Does the bitterness satisfy you?

Go easy. He might be skagging after a bad yoke.

Pixelbastardo

jiltloop

Personal insults and wishes of harm to us and our families.

Pretending that we're all saying that drugs are safe and making them legal will solve all problems.

Not engaging in actual discussion of positives and negatives of legislation change or the level of legislation change which could be introduced.

Is anyone going to actually engage in discussion or are all anti drugs people bitter, childish and sadistic?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Good plan, i just go out and find some friendly local drug dealer, ill ask him for a few E's, what could go wrong:cool:.

In reality very little, you'd probably have a really good time. In fact you statistically have more of a chance of dying from a night of binge drinking

But there is a very slim chance that you could get some MDMA replacement pill like the one that led to the deaths of those young boys. And there's a chance you could take two many of them and die.

It's a real pity because if we had some proper regulation (Holland a good example, you can check your pill and have it tested before you take it) these deaths would be avoidable

Temptamperu

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

In reality very little, you'd probably have a really good time. In fact you statistically have more of a chance of dying from a night of binge drinking

But there is a very slim chance that you could get some MDMA replacement pill like the one that led to the deaths of those young boys. And there's a chance you could take two many of them and die.

It's a real pity because if we had some proper regulation (Holland a good example, you can check your pill and have it tested before you take it) these deaths would be avoidable

You can buy tester kits online, I don't do a lot of E but its still worth it just in-case.
Better not listen to me though I dont use government supported drugs like booze and fags so im a muppet.